Friday, February 19, 2010

Joe Stack Was A Left Leaning Marxist

Yesterday I unequivocally condemned Joe Stack's brutal plane crash into the Echelon Building in Austin, Texas, which housed Federal IRS offices. I explained that regardless of his anti-tax philosophy, he does not speak for the libertarian or Tea Party movement, and that his actions are certainly inconsistent with those movements.

My mistake was to think that Joe Stack even presumed to speak as a libertarian. He did not. After a very close reading of his online diatribe today (full text here), it is very clear to me that his entire work was one of the most strongly leftist, most Marxist things I had read in some time. His fundamental complaint is the exploitation of the poor and working classes by the ruling class, and his fundamental purpose was to encourage and foment a violent overthrow thereof.

At no point does he oppose taxation or the redistribution of wealth on principle, certainly not from libertarian principles. At no point for instance, does he quote Hayek or Locke (though he conspicuously channels Marx). He never says- as a libertarian or Tea Partier would- that there should be no special interests in government. Instead he simply lobbies for his interests and laments for the plight of his own special interest group- the working class poor.

I would like to see direct condemnations of Joe Stack's actions by the left. I would like to see them vocally distance themselves from his radical, Marxist agenda to violently overthrow the ruling class and forcibly seize justice for the proletariat. I would like to see a little more embarrassment from the commentators on the Huffington Post, DailyKos, and even here at this blog, who gleefully demand to see Tea Partiers and libertarians cower, and cry, and blush, and beg forgiveness for the consequences of their ideas, because yesterday's attack was the bitter fruit of leftist thought, not Tea Party activism.

Joe Stack made it no clearer than in his concluding remarks, a contrast of communism and capitalism in clear favor of the former: "The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed." Did you get that? The Joe Stack plane crash in Austin, Texas was motivated by anti-capitalism. So those of you who want me to take responsibility for Stack, can go troll around Michael Moore's website. Just stop the lies, lies, lies.

For yet more evidence, I have compiled a list of quotes from the Stack Manifesto (full text here) below:

Joe Stack rants against big business:

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours?...The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies...

Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies.

Joe Stack condemns health care reform obstructionists:

Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

Joe Stack rants against organized religion:

In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God)...The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living.

Joe Stack channels John Edwards' Two Americas:

However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us…

Joe Stack and the proletariat:

My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement.

Joe Stack calls for violent revolution- very Marxist:

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.

Joe Stack Concludes:

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Actually, in one of the opening paragraphs he opposes taxation without representation on principle, which frames the whole letter. He then goes on to argue that he's never had any representation, since politicians don't represent the interests of people like him, but rather those of big corporations/bankers/unions/management (i.e. special interests). But since you have to pay taxes even though you have no representation, it then follows that the system is organized as if taxation without representation is its very principle, which is the opposite of what we are led to believe by our national myths.

It took almost no time for the delusional left to start blaming conservatives for this attack. Aside from being an anti-business, anti-conservative, marxist could the truth be just a little simpler? Maybe he was just nuts!

Tao, I didn't understand your first comment at all. Reading it, I feel like you didn't understand my post at all. To answer your questions from that first comment in the order you pose them:

1) No- I'm claiming there should be no special interests in government. That instead of helping out special interests, government should promote the general welfare by maintaining a civil society (wherein there is no aggression).

2)Um- absolutely not. Where on earth are you getting that? I strongly criticized this when it happened in December 2008. You can look back through the archives and find it. 3) Nope. 4) ??? 5) No- our country has a lot of problems and is far from a libertarian's ideal society.

As for your second comment, I totally disavow the left-right dichotomy (you can search this blog for my criticisms thereof too). It is the people to whom I am writing in this post- those who want to call this an act of right-wing, tea party terror- that are fooled by that dichotomy, but even accepting their framework as correct (which it is not), this guy is a leftist for sure, because to them Marx is left, and this guy is a Marxist for sure. You will also find no sharper critic of Bush than myself.

As for your final comment- Conservatism as we use it in modern American lexicon, typically refers to the movement that arose in the 20th century to conserve the values of Jeffersonian republicanism- a limited government which would not be able to help entrenched corporate interests because it would be properly restrained.

You criticize me for thinking in the line, but slip into such thinking yourself in your final comment. The Marxist wants the proletariat to violently seize the government and order society according to their principles. So his opposite must want the bourgeois government and its stakeholders to remain in power. Perhaps some of us would like for no special class or interest to wield power over others for its own benefit. We're called libertarians.

And PS: I don't simply see him as Marxist because he criticizes big government and big business while standing up for the little guy (all of which the tea party, libertarians, and I do). He's a Marxist because he preaches the violent overthrow of the establishment by the working class- that's textbook Marxism. Then he ends by espousing communism and bashing capitalism.

If you earnestly misunderstood me, you will say something like "Oh I see- yes he does seem to be a Marxist on that basis, and after rereading the post, you did make that clear." If you're being deliberately dense to troll around, then I am kindly asking you to please stop wasting my time, because I only want to discourse with someone who is really listening, not just lobbing rhetorical grenades for kicks.

d.eris- you are correct that he opposes "taxation without representation on principle" but my point was that he didn't oppose "taxation on principle." I frankly don't think that the taxes I am forced to pay are legitimized by the fact that I have representation and can vote on them. Majorities don't have the right to plunder minorities. Numbers don't make right. And our Founding Fathers certainly didn't want to have representation in Parliament and then pay their taxes. That would have been unacceptable. They just didn't want to pay those taxes.

RaNaUSA- "The left's tactic (at least some on the left) is - Keep the em on the defensive through a strong offensive built on a throughly bogus set of lies. Designed to capture the gullible." You've got that right for sure!

Anonymous- See my comments on "the line" above. Also- this blog is extremely anti-war. To the point that it irks some of the more doctrinaire Republicans that read this site.

Anonymous EVEN IF violent revolution against our government were warranted and justifiable right now (which it is most assuredly not), attacking unarmed, unwitting civilians working in a private office building in an undeclared war against the Federal government is as stupid and pointless as it is cowardly and evil. If you think that's how George Washington waged war, please revisit your history.

Right it takes more... like fundamentally expressing and agreeing with Marx's political views... which Stack did. From my article above: "His fundamental complaint is the exploitation of the poor and working classes by the ruling class, and his fundamental purpose was to encourage and foment a violent overthrow thereof."

"attacking unarmed, unwitting civilians working in a private office building in an undeclared war against the Federal government is as stupid and pointless as it is cowardly and evil. If you think that's how George Washington waged war, please revisit your history." - Messamore

No offense, but you are terribly deceived!Besides, history was written by the victors, that realization alone leaves an intellectual person questioning the accuracy of written history.

attacking unarmed, unwitting civilians working in a private office building in an undeclared war is exactly what a drone pilot does everyday, and dead babies and women killed by these evil cowards are simply written off by our super cowardly and evil military as "collateral damage". How would you like your dead family to be written off as collateral damage? I think you would want to fly planes into buildings at that point.

Indeed, fascism disguised as unrestrained capitalism is the cause of these retaliations. The crimes, that the terrorists whom completed hijacking the government of America in 1913, with the creation of the fed reserve.

The War on Drugs is a disguise for modern slavery. The War on Terrorism is the same deception, only much harsher. A drug user will get criminalized and then slave driven. A "terrorist" will be physically and mentally tortured by the real terrorists and possibly executed without any trial. These crimes are high crimes. Not petty. There is no distinguishing guantanamo bay and al-queda's headquarters. Both are CIA sanctioned and both are terrorist groups.

Unfortunately, as history repeats itself, we see that yet again Violence is indeed the only answer. I guess, according to what you are saying, Audie Murphy stopped the Nazi's with peace talks. LOL read more history man. Audie Murphy killed nazi's like flies. Fascism is taking over America, just as it did Germany. Except even more so now, like, the nazi's would jizz in their pants about drones and the stasi would jizz about Facebook. Facebook is a stasi/nazi/CIA wet dream made real.

Their is much more than what i have summarized here that will highlight the deceptive fascist occupation in the government of this once free country for you. The existence of a private internationally funded bank, the federal reserve, and the existence of Guantanamo are just the tip of the iceberg.